190710-11709

CourtBoard of Veterans' Appeals
DecidedMay 29, 2020
Docket190710-11709
StatusUnpublished

This text of 190710-11709 (190710-11709) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Board of Veterans' Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
190710-11709, (bva 2020).

Opinion

Citation Nr: AXXXXXXXX Decision Date: 05/29/20 Archive Date: 05/29/20

DOCKET NO. 190710-11709 DATE: May 29, 2020

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a sarcoma of the right upper back is dismissed.

Entitlement to a temporary total rating for convalescence following treatment for the sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Service connection for a sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck, was granted in a November 2019 rating decision during the pendency of this appeal, with an effective date of February 15, 2019.

2. The sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck, was excised on January 31, 2014, prior to the effective date of the grant of service connection for this disability and well beyond when the Veteran convalesced for that procedure.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The Board lacks jurisdiction over the claim of entitlement to service connection for a sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck, because this claim has been granted and consequently rendered moot. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(a), 7105(d)(5) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.200, 20.202 (2019).

2. The criteria are not met for a temporary total convalescent rating owing to excision of the sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck, on January 31, 2014. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (2019).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had honorable active duty service in the United States Navy from June 1998 to June 2012. He is a Persian Gulf War Era Veteran.

This appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) is from a May 2019 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In his July 2019 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with that decision, on VA Form 10182, the Veteran selected “direct review” of the evidence the RO had considered when deciding his claims. Additional evidence since has been associated with the file. See VA Examination, dated February 2020; VA Treatment Records, associated January 2020. But since he selected the “direct review” option, the Board may not consider this additional evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. He may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on his claim (the one not being dismissed since that one already has been granted), considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id.

Also on his July 2019 VA Form 10182 (NOD), the Veteran indicated he was additionally appealing his claims for service connection for a neck disability, right shoulder disability, and right foot disability. These other claims, however, were the subject of a prior June 2018 rating decision. To be considered a timely appeal, a NOD must be filed within one year from the date that the RO, i.e., Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), mails the Veteran notice of the decision, which, in this case as mentioned was in June 2018. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.52(a), 20.201, 20.203(b). He therefore had until June 2019 to file a NOD in response to that decision concerning these other claims, and he did not meet that deadline since his NOD was not instead received until July 2019.

Moreover, these other claims were decided prior to implementation of the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) on February 19, 2019, and, as such, were adjudicated in the prior “legacy” system; thus, a VA Form 10182 is not the appropriate form to appeal the decision on the other claims. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(a). As the Veteran did not file a timely NOD in response to the denial of these other claims, and since the rating decision denying them was under the legacy system, not the AMA, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate these other claims, and they will not be further discussed. 20.101, 20.200, 20.202.

The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board . . . to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

1. Entitlement to service connection for a sarcoma of the right upper back, later characterized as a lipoma on the back of the neck

This claim already has been granted in a November 2019 rating decision during the pendency of this appeal. Consequently, there is no remaining case or controversy as concerning whether service connection is warranted for this disability; the RO already has conceded that it is. Seri v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 441, 447 (2007).

If the Veteran disagrees with the rating and/or effective date assigned for this now service-connected disability, he must separately appeal these “downstream” issues. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

The Board may dismiss any appeal that fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. This claim has become moot by virtue of the RO granting it during the pendency of this appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.101, 20.200, 20.202. Therefore, summary dismissal of this claim is warranted.

2. Entitlement to a temporary total rating for convalescence following treatment, namely, excision of the lipoma from the right upper back

Temporary total disability ratings are to be assigned under 38 C.F.R. § 4.30

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Fagan v. Shinseki
573 F.3d 1282 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Skoczen v. Shinseki
564 F.3d 1319 (Federal Circuit, 2009)
Michael Seri v. R. James Nicholson
21 Vet. App. 441 (Veterans Claims, 2007)
Scott v. McDonald
789 F.3d 1375 (Federal Circuit, 2015)
Dickens v. McDonald
814 F.3d 1359 (Federal Circuit, 2016)
Gilbert v. Derwinski
1 Vet. App. 49 (Veterans Claims, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190710-11709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/190710-11709-bva-2020.